Wildlife photographer of the year

http://www.thisiscolossal.com/2013/1...13/?src=footer
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 11/5/2013 9:02 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
http://www.thisiscolossal.com/2013/1...13/?src=footer


I like them. But, a lot of them look shopped.

--
PeterN

On 2013-11-06 13:26:41 +0000, PeterN said:

On 11/5/2013 9:02 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
http://www.thisiscolossal.com/2013/1...13/?src=footer


I

like them. But, a lot of them look shopped.

So?

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2013-11-06 18:09:41 +0000, android said:

In article 2013110610061966639-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

On 2013-11-06 13:26:41 +0000, PeterN said:

On 11/5/2013 9:02 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
http://www.thisiscolossal.com/2013/1...f-the-year-201
3/?src=footer


I

like them. But, a lot of them look shopped.

So?

Don't you follow the Dogma?

What dogma would that be?

If the shooter feels some tweaking and adjustment is needed in post to
finish his/her image for presentation, so be it. I use Photoshop,
Lightroom & various plug-ins for my PP, as does Peter who probably
over-cooks his images in post more than most of the regulars in these
photogroups.

There are no images posted online or entered in various competitions
which have not been subject to some sort of post processing, some bad,
some tasteless, some good, and some outstanding. In the last year I
have seen wildlife photographs far superior to those shown this
particular competition run by "This is Colossal", they were just never
submitted to that site to be judged.

To see images equal or superior to those in that competition just take
a look at some of those to be found in NatGeo, The Observer
"Eyewitness" shots, or many of those to be found in 500px.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2013-11-06 20:14:25 +0000, android said:

In article 2013110612113412300-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

On 2013-11-06 18:09:41 +0000, android said:

In article 2013110610061966639-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

On 2013-11-06 13:26:41 +0000, PeterN said:

On 11/5/2013 9:02 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
http://www.thisiscolossal.com/2013/1...-of-the-year-2
01
3/?src=footer
I

like them. But, a lot of them look shopped.

So?

Don't you follow the Dogma?

What dogma would that be?

If the shooter feels some tweaking and adjustment is needed in post to
finish his/her image for presentation, so be it. I use Photoshop,
Lightroom & various plug-ins for my PP, as does Peter who probably
over-cooks his images in post more than most of the regulars in these
photogroups.

There are no images posted online or entered in various competitions
which have not been subject to some sort of post processing, some bad,
some tasteless, some good, and some outstanding. In the last year I
have seen wildlife photographs far superior to those shown this
particular competition run by "This is Colossal", they were just never
submitted to that site to be judged.

To see images equal or superior to those in that competition just take
a look at some of those to be found in NatGeo, The Observer
"Eyewitness" shots, or many of those to be found in 500px.

Sarcasm's toootaly lost on you? Nevermind, it obviously is...

When there is no purpose, or direction to it (sarcasm that is), yes.
Otherwise I prefer to see it when used to effect, you belief that you
used it so this time, is a misconception on your part. Hell! there
wasn't even a smidgin of irony there.

You pose a question regarding "Dogma" without a declaration of that
"Dogma". Which "Dogma" is it? The "Dogma" of declaring shots in a
competition your are not entered in as "shopped"?
....or the "Dogma" of an "android" who is just spewing?

My interrogatory "So?" was merely a statement which could have been;
"What the **** did you expect? They had to get the shots from the
camera to the web site, and "shopping" them as you know is just one
step in that direction."


--
Regards,

Savageduck

"PeterN" wrote in message
...
On 11/5/2013 9:02 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
http://www.thisiscolossal.com/2013/1...13/?src=footer


I like them. But, a lot of them look shopped.

I agree, especially the first one of the elephants.
However, to me, I really don't consider an image objectionable or
"photoshopped" unless it looks totally computer generated.
Minor retouching or adjusting even noise reduction and cloning, etc. is just
a modern continuation of the old darkroom tools available way back then...
Tim

On 2013-11-07 04:04:23 +0000, RichA said:

On Wednesday, November 6, 2013 3:11:34 PM UTC-5, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-11-06 18:09:41 +0000, android said:
In article 2013110610061966639-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-11-06 13:26:41 +0000, PeterN said:
On 11/5/2013 9:02 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
http://www.thisiscolossal.com/2013/1...13/?src=footer

I

like them. But, a lot of them look shopped.

So?

Don't you follow the Dogma?

What dogma would that be?
If the shooter feels some tweaking and adjustment is needed in post to
finish his/her image for presentation, so be it.


Someone wrote a treatise on what is acceptable in documentary photography.

I guess all sorts of someones have written treatise on what is
acceptable in documentary photography, but first define documentary
photography.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_photography

In this case we are talking wildlife photography which is not intended
to be diagnostic as in a field guide, or any sort of historic event
record. This is wildlife photography which is being judged on a
subjective basis, so it is hardly documentary. There is an element of
artistic interpretation here, and some interpretive post processing is
only to be expected. Probably unavoidable.

I laid down specifics on what could be done and what couldn't be done.

You did?? That's interesting. Are these specifics published anywhere?

I think it was in the medical photography field.

You aren't sure??

I remember that when deconvolution began in the astronomy world,
there were a few clueless people who
over-manipulated images and claimed details that in reality did not exist.

Quite possibly, but what does that have to do with this particular,
subjectively evaluated wildlife photography contest, judged by web site
editors with unknown credentials to do so?


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 11/6/2013 1:06 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-11-06 13:26:41 +0000, PeterN said:

On 11/5/2013 9:02 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
http://www.thisiscolossal.com/2013/1...13/?src=footer



I

like them. But, a lot of them look shopped.

So?


Is there a sarcastic emoticon?


--
PeterN

On 2013-11-07 16:52:43 +0000, PeterN said:

On 11/6/2013 1:06 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-11-06 13:26:41 +0000, PeterN said:

On 11/5/2013 9:02 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
http://www.thisiscolossal.com/2013/1...13/?src=footer



I

like

them. But, a lot of them look shopped.

So?


Is there a sarcastic emoticon?

😶

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 11/6/2013 10:12 PM, Tim Conway wrote:
"PeterN" wrote in message
...
On 11/5/2013 9:02 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
http://www.thisiscolossal.com/2013/1...13/?src=footer


I like them. But, a lot of them look shopped.

I agree, especially the first one of the elephants.
However, to me, I really don't consider an image objectionable or
"photoshopped" unless it looks totally computer generated.
Minor retouching or adjusting even noise reduction and cloning, etc. is just
a modern continuation of the old darkroom tools available way back then...
Tim



I figured that coming from me, my comment would be taken as a sarcastic
jab at the no PS crowd,

--
PeterN
I've been wrong before, and will sometimes be wrong in the suture.